Comments on: Spam fighter hit with $11.7 million judgment
Nonprofit behind antispam blacklist is hit with multimillion-dollar judgment, but the order may not be enforceable.
Most Popular
Latest tech news headlines
- Firefox development dilemma: Tweak or overhaul?
January 4, 2010 2:34 PM PST
- WSJ: Apple tablet shipping in March
January 4, 2010 1:48 PM PST
- CNET News Daily Podcast: Prepping for Nexus One and CES
January 4, 2010 1:09 PM PST
- See all headlines
RSS Feeds
Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.
More feeds available in our RSS feed index.
- Markets
Related quotes
Becoming what you oppose
Editorial by Dave Hayes
Many folks have asked me why I stopped "contributing" to the everlasting debates in NANA (news.admin.net-abuse.*). I generally respond with something along the lines of "I don't wish to become that which I oppose". Indeed, recently I've "plonked" several entities (among them the terrorists known as "spamhaus" and "spews") simply because I no longer wish to beat my head against the stone wall of ignorance.
Terrorists? Yes that's right. One definition of "terrorism" is "attacking innocents in the name of your cause". Nowhere is this more ironic and extreme than in the deeds of my old nemesi, the anti-spammer zealotry collective, some of whom are now known as spamhaus and spews. The terrorism they practice is implemented in the form of "mail blacklists".
Blacklists are not a new notion. In the 1950's, the infamous McCarthy blacklists contained names of "possible communists", which ultimately led us to a more sterile culture.
The social costs of what came to be called McCarthyism have yet to be computed. By conferring its prestige on the red hunt, the state did more than bring misery to the lives of hundreds of thousands of Communists, former Communists, fellow travelers, and unlucky liberals. It weakened American culture and it weakened itself. ---Victor Navasky, Naming Names (New York: Viking Press, 1980)
Modern internet technology has created our own version(s) of social blacklists. Many anti-spam zealots have turned to this method for freeing their mailboxes from spam. Simply expressed, these organizations maintain databases which are supposed to contain the IP addresses of known spammers. They then provide these databases to various electronic mail servers, so that the servers can reject email based on what's in these databases.
The bottom line is, if the machine that sends your email is on this list, a number of mail servers will automatically reject all email from your server.
If (and only if) they restricted these blacklists to actual spammers, I doubt very seriously that I would have problem with this practice. If we could trust human beings to maintain a logical and calm viewpoint about life, I doubt that I would have a problem with these blacklists. Unfortunately we cannot trust these things in either case.
Fact: Spamhaus and spews have added innocent IP blocks to their blacklists.
The anti-spammer idealotry goes like this: "Anyone who gets service from a network friendly to spammers is supporting the spammers and therefore our enemy." (The friend of my enemy is my enemy too?)
So here's how this goes. Once a network provider is branded "a communist"...er excuse me..."a spammer", ALL of their IP ranges are blocked. Typically a network provider is providing services for smaller service providers, many of whom would never and have never engaged in spamming of any kind. No notice is really given on these blacklisting events, rather you find out when mail starts bouncing to some destination. Usually an end customer is the first to notice, and that customers is directed by the bounce to complain to...their own ISP!
In essence, the customer is tricked into presenting the terrorist anti-spam agenda to the ISP. The ISP turns around and finds out that their provider (or provider's provider) is what the anti-spam zealots want "silenced". Until that target complies with their arbitrary agenda (usually of the form "stop spamming", but this is not always true...see below), everyone else has to suffer with electronic mail blocks.
What's wrong with this? Everything.
* First and foremost, the most often heard reason anti-spammers are so rabid about anti-spam is "it makes electronic mail unusable for average people". If this is true, then how does blocking innocent email help this situation? In fact, blacklisting innocents contributes to the problem. The hypocrisy here is so thick I doubt even a knife can cut it. * The dishonor of the practice of blacklists is amazing. Many naive internet mail administrators add blacklists like spamhaus "because they work to reduce spam". Lots of these sites have no idea that they are being cut off from legitimate email because of these machinations. If their customers really knew that they were cutoff, I wonder how many would still buy service? Getting rid of spam is one thing, blocking that key business email that means $100K in sales is quite another. Lets take this one step further. Person A buys email service from ISP X who is using Spamhaus to block spam email. Person A's daughter, who's income is very low due to being a student in college, buys email service from ISP Y (because it's cheap) who uses IAP S as their connectivity. ISP Y buys network from IAP S because it's cheap. Due to real life constraints, the only contact Person A has with their daughter is email. IAP S suddenly gets put on the anti-spam master blacklist. The same day, Person A's daughter has a car accident. A roommate desperately tries to send email to Person A but it's blocked. Worse, it's blocked because these zealots have an idealogical cause which is set up to be more important than a person's life. This is the height of dishonor. * The practice is quite criminal by many definitions and with criminals on all sides: o Any ISP that is blocked is told to "comply with our demands or be blacklisted" (a.k.a. extortion). o Attacking innocents in the name of their cause (a.k.a. terrorism). o Since the control of the blacklist is out of the hands of the service provider who subscribes to it, by law you must clearly state "random people may be blocked to your email box by other people who are not under our control" before selling "email services". I've never seen this stated on any ISP ad. (a.k.a false advertising) o Blacklisting ISPs is a good way of knocking them out of business (a.k.a restraint of trade) o If spam ever goes away, these organizations will also. Thus they have a vested interest in keeping spam alive (a.k.a playing both sides of the street)
Do note that the anti-spammers claim these practices are not criminal and will "reduce economic support for the 'spam friendly' ISPs". This claim is quite erroneous:
Fact: Spammer companies have far more money than most innocents.
Yep, to the tune of millions of dollars per month. SPAM is big business. Do you think that the income of one little ISP with 1000 customers is going to make any difference against the large income of a spam company? No! All that does is clear more bandwidth for the spammers to use, should the little ISP cave in and switch to another provider.
While there's no proof (that I'm aware of), it's not so far fetched to open up questions of collusion between "the providers that are anti-spam" and the "anti-spam blacklists". Certain providers, to compete, may pay the blacklist groups lots of money to keep attacking innocents, which gets them more customers in the long run as ISPs fold because they cant afford the connectivity provided by the "anti-spam supporter" providers.
I've established some things here:
1. In my opinion, blacklists are bad. 2. The anti-spammers are resorting to clearly criminal activities to further their goals: extortion, restraint-of-trade, terrorism. 3. The effect the anti-spammers are trying to have by blocking innocents only works to destroy email connectivity, the cure is worse than the disease.
This brings me to my concluding point. The original complaint against spammers included accusations of being criminal. Most spammers are considered criminal. Yet look at the anti-spammers! In their undying eternal zeal to end spam, they have become just what they oppose! Criminals and email destroyers. Gee, isn't this what they call the spammers?
The aware person realizes that fighting something only makes it stronger. Indeed, when you see two people rabidly on one side or the other, it's very hard to distinguish the two. They almost appear to be the same person, willing to commit any atrocity for the sake of their ideology or economics. What more do I need to know?
So, in a roundabout way, that's why I don't participate. I've done my days of tilting at windmills. I've presented my pearls, but the swine didn't hear any of them. They've misrepresented my position countless times for their own agendas, failed to understand even the most basic of the concepts I've explained, and twisted what I've said to make me out to be something I am not. ("Spam supporter"...lol)
I have finally realized that it has less to do with the ability to understand, it's mostly that they are not willing to understand. So in that climate I should once again venture forth into that primal never-ending argumentia that is NANA?
No. I'm sorry. I have far better things to do.
Spamhaus are run by humans, if they make a mistake it is easy to get off the list, unless you are an actual spammer.
Spamhaus may be "non-profit" but they make a pretty bundle in other, more unsavory areas, anyhow, fighting something makes it strong.-
-No, I'm sorry, but just No, are you telling me that if we let Spam, the terror of the internet, have free reigh, undeterred, free to go where it pleases without anything stopping it, on the INTERNET of all places, that it would become weaker?
I hate to Break it to you, but the entire goal of spamming is to reach more people, and despite so many measures taken against corporations who spam, and so many of them not generating that "magic" revenue they thought they would, and thus crashing into dust, they continue. Do you have *any* idea what would happen if we allowed them to send all of the messages they wanted? Without anyone to keep us informed?
Chaos isn't the word I'm looking for, more like Misery, Spam becomes stronger, not because it's fought, but because greed is stronger than any barrier, any blocked IP, the idea that one can become rich from the annoyance and even misery of others, with very little of your own money spent, essentially an all-return financial opportunity, is what drives the spam corporations.
This you see that RBL owners potentionaly can dictate their rules to ISPs and even control them.
You know that BMW is the car most liked by young gungsters? According to your logic lets remove all BMW from our roads or force BMW dealers to check their clients for criminal history before they sell cars?
Check your contract...
US IP addresses are owned by the companies that have them listed in the ARIN database.
1) E360 can collect any and all property owned by spamhaus located in the USA. This includes any servers, ip addresses, domains, bandwidth, office furniture, among all their other assets and have them auctioned off to collect the owed money.
2) ANY and ALL US Organizations that continue to use the Spamhaus Blacklists in contempt of the court order, are in CONTEMPT OF COURT and if a court order is filed, ANY and ALL companies that use SPAMHAUS to block emails, will face upto 1 year in jail and/or fines depending on the judge and his discretion.
The fact is, spamhaus is an illegal organization. Running a web hosting company I know this. They told me, that unless I canceled certain clients, they would block ALL my customers.
That is called extortion, that is called blackmail, and that is a felony.
Spamhaus has NO respect for the law and deserves to be completely put out of business.
I hope E360 utilizes this judgement and drains them bankrupt and files a contempt of court motion for every sngle individual that uses their blacklist, that will result in them ending up in jail for upto 1 year.
Shame on spamhaus. It's about time this criminal organization that makes MILLIONS of dollars for steve lindford, all under the guise of a non-profit.. pays for their blackmail, extortion and illegal tactics in every single way possible.
Spamhaus uses US providers such as paypal to receive donations. Spamhaus pays for servers based in the US. S
Spamhaus must be doing something right if spammers like you foam at the mouth.
This was traditionally the practice of spyware and adware applications, but now there are networks spam zombies engineered by hackers for unscrupulous marketers who are working together to hammer the average internet user. They are worse than telemarketers, because they always leave something behind that costs the recipient in one way or another.
A company that is enabling a spammer is well aware of it. There is no excuse for allowing a spamming subscriber continued access. As an internet user - I don't want my email coming from any domain that hosts a spammer and if the ISP?s other subscribers have problems sending emails, let them complain to their ISP. This may be the pressure they need to get rid of the non-complaint subscribers. So, IMO:
1) I would gladly use Spamhaus' service, if I could for my personal use, and
2) I will post a solution when I find one!
a. E360, who is a known spammer - won't be getting any media circulation read by me after I do!
3) I urge people to keep an eye out for new laws and stay on top of your senators and house reps
4) Contact Illinois senators who voted for the CAN-SPAM act of 2003 (s. 877):
a. Senator Richard J. Durbin (D- IL) dick@durbin.senate.gov
b. Representative Jesse L. Jackson, Jr. (D - 02) webmaster@jessejacksonjr.org
c. Representative Mark S. Kirk (R - 10) rep.kirk@mail.house.gov
5) Then contact your own representatives and ask them what they are doing to prevent this costly nuisance.
So, I hope that you spammers, including you ericjohnson, if you are a spammer (or possibly his attorney... just as bad;), get what you deserve - sued and jailed. Consumers are sick of being preyed upon with spam, spyware and adware, so count you days of profit as numbered!
If we do not remove certain people from hosting the sites" EVEN if they are 100% legitimate, 100% legal, and have NOTHING to do with "SPAM" that our ENTIRE Network and ALL IP Addresses of ALL Our Customers AND Upstream will be BLACKLISTED.
Tell me, is this not extortion? Is this not blackmail? Extortion and Blackmail are a FEDERAL crime in the US, a Felony at that.
Regardless of anyone and their opinion on spam, does anyone think such wreckless statements, and complete utter disregard for the law are acceptable behavior?
Just because they provide a service that is valuable in the eyes of many, does that make it ok to commit hundreds of felonies on a daily basis?
That's like robbing a store and using the excuse.. i'm just doing it to support my family.
Does that make it ok? Ask yourself that. This is a vigilante organization with absolutely no respect for the law.
They threaten, extort and blackmail, all for "PROFIT". Millions and MILLIONS of dollars in profit. They charge ISPs upto $250,000 a year for their filtering service.
The fact is, the only criminal enterprise is spamhaus. And while I agree filters should be used, the fact that myself and countless other web hosts become at their mercy and will or risk our entire upstream and business being shut down if we don't comply with their orders is completely wreckless and they should be shut down by the government and all the executives sent to prison.
A spam "service" may be "valuable" to spammers, but it is so only because spammers are STEALING. They are stealing from me, for example. They steal bandwidth, they steal processing time, they steal storage space. Please provide your address so that I can charge you for the stuff you and your fellow spammers have stolen from me.
And your BS about a "filtering service" shows that besides being a spammer, you have no clue about how the Internet works.
Figures...
One of my customers hired a third party company to promote their web site and their web site ended up on the SBL. I told the customer that our company does not tolerate spamming and to cease email advertising and they agreed.
But apparently, Spamhaus had another view. They told me, that this individual should not be given a second chance, and that if I didn't terminate them immediately that my entire network would be blocklisted.
Regardless of your opinion on spam, that email that was sent out, was sent out 100% legally under federal law, and the user was told by the company they were opt-in permission based emails.
Should an organization blackmail and extort my company among countless others in this industry, simply in order to profit?
The fact is, REGARDLESS of anyone and their opinion on who is right or wrong in this situation, and what their opinion of spam is.
Should Spamhaus be allowed to use criminally illegal, felonious Extortion and Blackmail to completely destroy my entire business if I do not abide by their criminal enterprise mentality?
How would you like if someone used your email address in the from box of a spam campaign and your domain ended up on the spamhaus blacklist and your upstream had to terminate you, because spamhaus blackmailed and extorted them into doing so?
Do you think having this power without even caring or seeing both sides of the situation and being completely wreckless, all while making MILLIONS of dollars a year for the company.. is any more ethical than what a spammer does?
So, for a company to break the law, in order to enforce their own "agenda" is completely 100% acceptable? Do I need to even continue?
I suppose your rational is that it is ok to murder a spammer as well.. "all in the sake of spam fighting?"
It's anti-zealots such as yourself that make a mockery of the internet and those that try to be fair and reasonable when it comes to certain circumstances in which there are two fair sides.
Your ridiculous attempt to wiggle yourself out of that doesn't work.
YOU are the one who is stealing. Your spam is stealing my computer resources.
YOU are the one who is the criminal.
60,000 spam email folks!!!!
They only had about 50 accounts on their mail server! Well I got them setup with freebsd and postfix and we decided to start using spam filters now all of our headaches are gone. You know what Eric? The sheriff of this county has told me that by no means am I to remove the blocks and I've checked with lawyers, we are not bound by Illinois law! Thank GOD idiots in Illinois don?t tell me what I can/can?t do in Texas. Also its to bad that the cost of spam has not been voiced by anyone in the IT sector. The Sheriff of this Texas County says that Illinois can take their judgment and shove it where the sun don't shine because Spamhaus is performing a service down here and it works and it save this county money!!! Some people can't see the big picture because their face is shoved to close to the screen!!!
My nickels worth
Mac
Spamhaus's policy may be more agressive than other RBLs. Its a good time to re-examine your ISP choice if they become blacklisted. YOu may even be able to leverage the listing in renegotiating your ISP pricing.
I question anyones motives and integrity when they blame a tool instead of the person wielding it. RBLs don't kill SPAM, good sysadmins kill SPAM. Bad sysadmins end up blocking too much or too little. Using an RBL is not a set-and-forget solution. It needs monitored and adjusted constantly.
The e360 lawsuit is an subversion of the American justice system. It is an obvious fabrication clearly intended to inhibit Spamhaus's ability to provide services. Furthermore, the patriotic PR on your website is an utterly twisted misrepresentation of the facts.
Should the US District court of Illinois come to its senses, you should be forced to pay not only reparations and punitive damages to Spamhaus, but to every business and individual you have SPAMed.
To decide in e360's favor would set an unfortunate precedent and incite lawsuits against other RBL services.
- Fight spam while learning Linux
- by sshadygt August 3, 2007 8:28 AM PDT
- Fight spam while learning Linux
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
Showing 2 of 2 pages (114 Comments)